Seattle Homelessness Action Plan

Action Plan: Getting Homeless Families with Children and Homeless Single Women off the Streets of Seattle

Part A

1. Executive Summary

1.0. Overview

The problem of homeless in Seattle is likely to continue growing if no serious long-term interventions are instituted especially when it comes to enabling people to not only find, but also keep housing. Towards this end, there is need for a deliberate plan that seeks to find and highlight the appropriate long-term responses to the homelessness problem in Settle. It is important to note that homelessness afflicts not only those who sleep out in the cold and on hard concrete surfaces, but its impact often transverses far and wide. Homelessness bears significant economic, moral, as well as social costs. This is more so the case with regard to the innate human suffering occasioned by the same and the resulting wastage in potential.

1.1. Problem Statement

In response to the Honorable Mayor's pledge on 2nd June 1998, to the effect that the by Christmas the streets of Seattle will have no i) no homeless families with children or ii) homeless single women; this action plan sets forth strategies for fulfilling the Honorable Mayor’s pledge.

1.2. Course of Action

The current proposition of the City for addressing the problem of homelessness is more of a ‘control’ measure. In addition to emphasizing services for homeless individuals, the current plans and priorities of the City spotlight the role and relevance of roping in other jurisdictions in the funding of services that deal with homelessness. Towards this end, this document proposes the following strategic priorities:

i) Provision of suitable housing
ii) Enhancement of financial independence

2. Background

2.0. Quantifying Homelessness

Getting the actual number of homeless people is a complex undertaking that is fraught with many challenges. This report largely relies on a report published in February of this year by the Seattle-King County Homelessness Advisory Group titled, Homelessness in King County: A Background Report. In essence, the report will concern itself with two homeless categories, i.e. homeless families with children and homeless single women. King County has more than 5,500 homeless people – with 76.4% of these finding shelter in temporary housing and 23.6% being out in the streets on any given night. With single males being more likely to find shelter in the City, in comparison to any other group, the most vulnerable of the homeless population is likely to be turned away from temporal and emergency shelters.
Groups/Categories Sleeping on the Streets
Number
Families
300
Youth and Teen Parents
360
Single Adults
700
Table 1.0
It is important to note that although Seattle is home to a significant majority of King Country’s shelters, those who reside in the said shelters come from all corners of King Country. Only 10% of shelters for the homeless are located outside Seattle. The target of this report is the over 53.8% of the homeless people sleeping on the streets who happen to be homeless single women or homeless families with children. In actual numbers, this translates to approximately 700 persons.

2.1. Triggers of Homelessness

The exact triggers of homelessness are often hard to identify. This is more so the case given that homelessness could be brought about by the interaction of a myriad of factors. Some of the more obvious causes of homelessness are abuse, addictions and mental health related issues, inadequate affordable housing, and poverty. With regard to Seattle, three primary causes of homelessness have been identified. These happen to be; inadequate income, problems at a personal or familial level, and high housing costs.

2.1.0. Inadequate Income

The percentage of those living below the poverty level in King County is approximated to be 12.4%. This is higher than the United States’ percentage of persons deemed to be ‘below the poverty level[footnoteRef:1]. Those who fall in this category would find it difficult to make payments for a wide range of necessities including, but not limited to, education, health care, and of course housing. The median household income for King County is captured as $41,994. Those who fall below this median income may find it difficult to consistently meet their basic needs due to erratic paychecks or lack of employment, which effectively means that unforeseen events (such as accidents or illnesses) are likely to push such persons to the street. [1: King County, “Median Household Income in King County and U.S.” https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/performance-strategy-budget/regional-planning/benchmark-program/Economy/EC02_Income/MedianIncomeChart.aspx, (1998). ]

2.1.1. High Cost of Housing

To understand the genesis of the prevailing high housing costs, it would be appropriate to conduct some background checks. The creation of the Office of Economic Development (OED) was key towards the enhancement of workforce development. In essence, this provided Mayor Norman Rice with the appropriate foundation to power through his social equity objectives. Together with the Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI), many of those who lacked adequate incomes were able to access living-wage placements and postings. It is, however, important to note that the social equity agenda of Seattle was challenged by larger regional trends whereby the resulting economic growth ended up edging the living costs higher. Housing costs were also driven up. Currently, with their already strained means (see 2.1.0. above), those who are at risk of homelessness or those who are already homeless cannot afford the average rent of decent housing in Seattle. It is even worse for those who already have children (i.e. additional mouths to feed) and the single women who cannot pool funds with partners to be able to afford an average dwelling.

2.1.2. Personal or Familial Problems

Personal problems most homeless people face include, but they are not limited to, drug abuse and mental illnesses. It is important to note that although drug abuse has in some instances been seen as a consequence of homelessness, whereby those who find themselves homeless enter depressed states and resort to drug abuse, the same has also been designated as a homelessness trigger in Seattle. In this case, addictive tendencies are expensive to sustain and could make persons neglect their responsibilities such as the payment of bills. If left untamed, addictions could lead to job loss and disrupt familial relations. On the familial front, homeless people in Seattle are likely to be victims of psychological or mental abuse at home. Various forms of abuse (i.e. sexual abuse) could push the affected persons out into the streets.

2.2. Cost of Homelessness

There are a myriad of economic, social, as well as moral costs associated with homelessness. As per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ Article 25, housing is one of the rights deemed necessary for the maintenance of living standards necessary for general well-being. As a matter of fact, the various rights enshrined in the declaration, i.e. the right to health and the right to privacy could be easily compromised in the absence of decent shelter. At the individual level it is important to note that homelessness could lead to intense emotional and physical distress. Homelessness leaves individuals exposed to tough elements of nature and prone to diseases and insecurities. It is even worse for children, whereby their exposure to circumstances related to lack of shelter could seriously affect that moral as well as emotional and social development. It has been demonstrated in various studies that persons born in an unstable housing cycle are likely to end up being homeless as adults. In that regard, therefore, in addressing the problem of homeless families with children in Seattle City, a future problem will be averted. Towards this end, the City has a moral obligation to see to it that children are brought up in an environment that supports proper development.

Homelessness results in reduced quality of life for not only those who are homeless but for everyone else as well. This is more so the case given the issue of encroachment into both public and private space and related concerns such as perceived threats to safety. Tourism is also harmed by homelessness. Essentially, “people are less inclined to tour an area that seems ‘rundown’ due to fear of an increased crime rate and large drug use population”[footnoteRef:2]. Tourism is a revenue source for our City, effectively meaning that if the issue of homelessness is not addressed in due course, we could lose some proportion of a key revenue stream. [2: Johnson, Christopher, “Socio-economic and Environmental Impact of Homelessness in Olympia,” Washington. Environmental Health and Social Justice (March, 2016): 1-16. ]

Lastly, public resources also happen to be consistently drained by the problem of homelessness. This is particularly the case in Settle whereby the City’s plans and priorities are more inclined towards the provision of services to homeless people as opposed to just the provision of sleeping places. It is important to note that at the moment, King County devotes millions of dollars to the problem of homelessness on an annual basis with the key funders including Cities like ours. A minimum of $6 million is allocated (from all sources) on an annual basis to support and operate the County’s homeless shelters. Approximately $7.8 million was spent by the City in 1998 alone for the provision of various services to homeless individuals. This figure was almost double that used a decade ago. This is a clear indication of the ballooning nature of costs associated with the provision of services to homeless persons year after year.
The costs of homelessness highlighted above are effective pointers towards the need to comprehensively address the issues of homelessness with the long-term in mind. No effort should be spared towards the elimination of homelessness. Towards this end, ensuring that there are no homeless families with children as well as homeless single women on the City’s streets by December 25th would be a good place to start.

3. Emergent Issues

3.0. Funding

Regardless of the strategies implemented, getting 700 homeless single women and homeless families off the streets is likely to be a costly undertaking. The two courses of action highlighted herein are resource intensive and various funding sources will have to be identified given the finite nature of the resources at our disposal. Also, given the fact that Seattle carries the County’s heaviest homelessness burden - with most of those in the streets of the City having travelled from other parts – there may be need for other jurisdictions to contribute towards this endeavor. Convincing the said jurisdictions to participate is likely to be an uphill task.

3.1. Number of Homeless People

Thanks to a number of intervening factors, conducting a headcount of the number of people that are homeless is a notoriously tricky affair. For purposes of enhancing the viability of the course of action undertaken, there will be need to verify the number of homeless single women and homeless families in the City’s streets.

3.2. Competing Interests

There could be some tension between the pledge made by the Honorable Mayor and some of the guiding strategies by the Advisory Committee on addressing Seattle’s homelessness problem. Specific recommendations by the committee that appear incompatible with the proposed course of action herein include, but they are not limited to, ‘not increasing the existing shelter capacity.’
Part B

4. Proposed Course of Action

4.0. Provision of Suitable Housing

Without shelter, it becomes difficult for people to attain self-fulfillment. Further, homelessness denies our community active participation by all members. It is for this and various other reasons, as has been highlighted in section 2.2.Cost of Homelessness, that this Action Plan for solving the homelessness problem in Seattle City deems the establishment of a home for the identified group as being an issue of great importance. There are two parameters that will be used in defining ‘suitable’ housing. These are:

i) Affordable
With regard to affordable housing, this means that a home ought to match the financial capabilities of the occupants.
ii) Appropriate

Appropriate, on the other hand, means that a home ought to match the occupants needs as well as circumstances. For example, a home designed for a family with children would not be deemed appropriate for a single woman.
In seeking to adopt a long-term model for supportive housing, we deem ‘mini-homes’ and ‘mini-home communities’ to be the most appropriate framework for subsidized homes in seeking to offer a supportive housing solution within a six month period. The ‘mini-home’ model has been adopted for the following reasons:

i) Providing subsidized housing will be prohibitive in terms of cost. It is our view that the cost of subsidized housing can be cut by half with the implementation of ‘mini-homes’ – and as a result ensure that the available resources are used to accommodate more people. Our survey indicates that indeed, there are a minimum of 1,300 people in our streets without shelter. Further, our survey reveals that 700 of these fall within the Honorable Mayor’s pledge bracket. ‘Mini-homes’ are the most practical way to house such a number of people without overstretching the limited resources available.

ii) ‘Mini-homes’ offer the most pliable solution to accommodate both homeless single women and homeless families with children. While homeless single women will be housed in a single unit, homeless families with children will be housed in a double ‘mini-home’ unit or triple ‘mini-home’ unit depending on the size of the family. The double ‘mini-home’ unit and the triple ‘mini-home’ unit are aggregated single ‘mini-homes.’

4.0.1. Defining the Framework

The ‘mini-homes’ are designed to be more of a longer-term solution to the homelessness problem affecting those in the Honorable Mayor’s pledge bracket. This is more so the case given that in addition to being used as supportive dwellings, they also double up as emergency and transitional shelters. Towards this end, at a minimum, these standards will be adopted in the establishment of ‘mini-homes’.

For single women;
i) The ‘mini-home’ will offer adequate space for a normal sized table and chair, a standard bed, and a 3-by-3 foot storage space.
ii) The ‘mini-home’ will be built using long-lasting materials, have a ceiling height of 7 feet, and be appropriately insulated.
iii) A maximum of ten ‘mini-homes’ will share the same cooking and bathroom facilities.

For homeless families with children;
i) Two or three ‘mini-homes’ similar to those for single women will be aggregated with only one of the units having a normal sized table and chair. The other unit(s) will be equipped with a standard bed and/or a baby bed.
ii) A maximum of five such dwellings/clusters will share the same cooking and bathroom facilities.

In essence, one of the key benefits of ‘mini-homes’ as opposed to other housing options are minimal costs – with the average cost for a single unit being $2500. It is, however, important to note that in this case, the ‘mini-home’ will have higher than average costs because of two key factors. These are; i) the fact that the ‘mini-homes’ will have permanency features (i.e. utilization of durable materials in building) and, ii) as a consequence of setting up additional separate facilities, i.e. cooking and bathroom facilities.

4.0.2. Implementation

4.0.2.0. Regulations

The City’s planning department will be roped in early enough so as to effectively navigate local land use regulations. Of key concern in this case would be the City’s zoning regulations and zone densities because in this case, the subject matter happens to be the utilization of several single parcels of land in the development of detached small housing units. The proposals made herein may call for the modification of the City’s zoning code.

4.0.2.1. Financing

It is important to note, from the onset, that grants, as opposed to loans, will be preferable in the implementation of this action plan. This is more so the case given that our target population of homeless people, i.e. homeless families with children and homeless single women, have no or minimal income. In that regard, therefore, the rental income generated from the project is not likely to be sufficient to guarantee the repayment of debt. It is, however, important to note that subsidy contributions are hard to come by as most public funders gravitate towards the advancement of repayable loans. This effectively means that the most appropriate funding avenues to be adopted in this case would be those whose subsidy opportunities are deemed highest. It is with these facts in mind that the following sources of funds will be taken into consideration.

i) The City in Collaboration with other Jurisdictions
Our survey reveals that indeed, Seattle is home to the County’s vast majority of homeless persons. For this reason, the other jurisdictions ought to fund a specific percentage of the budget. We propose that 50% of the budget be funded by the City, in collaboration with other jurisdictions. The proportion of funds to be contributed by each jurisdiction will be subject to high-level consultations.

ii) The Housing and Urban Development Funding
In essence, the HUD program advances “grants to states and units of general local governments to implement local housing strategies designed to increase home ownership and affordable housing opportunities for low and very low-income Americans”[footnoteRef:3]. To qualify for this particular funding, the units must satisfy the Housing Quality Standards - HQS standards. The proposed housing units will satisfy the said standards. [3: HUD, “The HOME Program: Home Investment Partnerships.” https://www.hud.gov/hudprograms/home-program , (2018). ]

iii) The Washington State Housing Trust Fund
This particular fund does offer assistance in the resettlement of homeless people by way of supporting the building and establishment of housing projects that seek to offer some level of permanent residency.
‘Mini-Homes’ Capital Funding
With a cost of $3,000 per unit, $4.2 million will be the total project development budget. Land will be donated. The table below highlights both the total capital sources and the total capital expenses.
A: Capital Sources
Amount

1. The City in Collaboration with other Jurisdictions
2,100,000


2. The Housing and Urban Development Funding
600,000


3. The Washington State Housing Trust Fund
1,500,000


Total Capital
4,200,000

B: Capital Expenditure


1. Engineering and Architecture
212,000

2. Construction I - Site Work
552,000

3. Construction II - Building
3,100,000

4. Fees:
i) Loan
ii) Developer
iii) Legal

53,000

5.
166,000

6.
61,000

7. Miscellaneous Expenses
56,000

Total Capital Expenditure
4,200,000


Table 1.1.

‘Mini-Homes’ Operational Funding
From December 25th 1998, the ‘mini-homes’ will need service as well as operational funding going forward. The operating funding sources and operating expenditure, on an annual basis, has been highlighted in table 1.3 below.
A: Operating Funding Sources


1. State Funding (Operational and Maintenance Fund)
190,000


2. King County Funding
72,000

3. Rental Income
7,000

4. Donations from Private Entities (i.e. organizations and individual philanthropic activities)
30,000



Total Operating Funding Sources
299,000

B: Operating Expenditure


1. Management fees and expenses
70,000

2. Maintenance and Repairs
94,000

3. Utilities
109,000

4. Insurance
18,500

5. Miscellaneous Expenditure
7,500

Total Operating Expenditure
299,000


Table 1.2.
4.1. Enhancement of Financial Independence
It should be noted that one of the most important components in seeking long-term solutions to the problem of homelessness is financial independence. In addition to being necessary in the sustenance of a decent standard of living, financial independence is a critical element in seeking to meet basic needs, of which housing is one. In most cases, housing has a troubling relationship with financial independence. For an individual to be able to afford decent housing, such an individual ought to have some income with which to pay rent or buy a home. On the other hand, the emotional, physical, and practical challenges associated with lack of decent housing makes it difficult for homeless persons to focus on income generation. For this reason, even as we seek to build ‘mini-homes’ for the target population of homeless people in the City, the problem of homelessness will not really be solved in the long-term without addressing the income concern. This action plan is of the view that those who are homeless but have specific skills and abilities could fend for themselves and be able to afford decent housing if, and when they attain financial independence via engagement in various profitable ventures, employment, etc. Towards this end, the City will work closely with other jurisdictions to ensure that the financial independence issue is addressed. Specifically, the following factors will be taken into consideration.
4.1.0. Employment
When people are gainfully employed, they find it easier to meet their basic needs, of which housing is one. Further, as it has been pointed out elsewhere in this report, the special circumstances of homeless people makes it difficult for them to secure gainful employment. The city, in collaboration with other jurisdictions, ought to implement the relevant programs and policy measures to promote employment opportunities. This ought to be an ongoing concern so as to ensure that those who secure shelter in the ‘mini-homes’ are able to meet their rent obligations consistently and also improve their situation so that they can transition to better housing units.
4.1.1. Income Assistance
It is important to note that not all those in the streets can secure gainful employment. Whereas there are those with some skills needed in various work settings, others possess no such skills or qualifications. For this reason, we would not expect this specific category of people to attain financial independence via gainful employment. Regardless of the challenges associated with routing income assistance, there is need to design unique ways of providing such homeless persons with some level of financial help so that they may be able to meet their basic needs.
In this endeavor, it is also important to note that the relevance of education and training cannot be overstated. The City, in collaboration with other jurisdictions, and in partnership with the relevant organizations ought to provide those who do not have skills required to be employable with formal and alternative educational opportunities so as to cultivate the most important skills that would further enhance their ability to be employed. However, there ought to be plans in place to ensure that those in this category who secure shelter in the ‘mini-homes’ and have specific challenges that dim their ability to find gainful employment are provided with income assistance in the long-term. These include, but they are not limited to, persons with serious chronic conditions and other illnesses, persons with disabilities, and the elderly.
4.1.2. Provision of Life Skills
Although it could be overlooked, this is yet another important factor in seeking to ensure that the financial independence of those in the target population of homeless persons is enhanced. These skills would go a long way towards ensuring that these persons are able to adopt the appropriate habits necessary to build greater independence in matters money and life management – which would in turn enable them to maintain housing and meet basic needs. Some of the most appropriate skills in this case include money management skills, time management skills, conflict resolution skills, and emotional management skills. Others include, but they are not limited to, family planning methods and family management skills.
Also, as it has been pointed out elsewhere in this report, drug and substance abuse has been linked to homelessness in Seattle City. Drug addicts routinely act erratically and in addition to exhausting their funds in search of drugs to satisfy their cravings, they tend to miss work and are likely to be fired as a result. In that regard, therefore, there is need to advance rehabilitative services to those who happen to be in the drug and substance addiction cycle. The consequence of eliminating the drug addiction problem is likely to be better management of resources (i.e. money) and better self-awareness and responsiveness.
5. Recommendations
5.0. Resources are finite and there are no guarantees as to the availability of funds. In that regard, therefore, effort will be made to access funding from other sources. Such sources include, but that are not limited to, private philanthropic donations. Volunteers will also be sought so as to minimize both capital and operational expenses.
5.1. Efforts have been made to ensure that the problem of homelessness in the country is captured accurately. It is important to note that although counting and publicly emphasizing the size of the homeless population in the City has significant political power, as far as the application of this action plan is concerned, no practical or strategic benefit is likely to be derived from taping into such a possibility.
5.2. Competing interests will be addressed using two approaches. First, a give and take approach has been adopted. Towards this end, shared interests proposed by the Advisory Committee have already been considered and incorporated in this action plan. These include, but they are not limited to, being proactive in the prevention of homelessness, adopting a regional approach in the seeking to address the homelessness problem, addressing the underlying triggers of homelessness, etc. Secondly, the relationship and trust building capabilities of all those participating in this exercise will be tapped so as to bring everybody who could be having alternate views on board.
5.3. The action plan calls for collaboration across all departments and units so as to enhance its chances of success. The Honorable Mayor’s indulgence is requested in the support and implementation of the action plan. With the skills, knowhow, and capabilities of all those who will be involved in the implementation of this action plan, a lot is likely to be accomplished within the 6 month period. Some have been involved in coalition building efforts such as the Fair Budget Action Campaign and the Washington State Coalition for Homeless. The experience gathered is adequate. We pledge our full commitment to see through the pledge the Honorable Mayor made on the 2nd of June to the effect that no homeless families with children or homeless single women will be on the streets of Seattle by December 25th.
















Appendices
Appendix A
Chronology
June 25th, 1998 First meeting by the Action Plan Implementation (API) committee
July 3rd, 1998 API steering committee meeting
July 8th, 1998 API steering committee meeting
July 20th, 1998 API steering committee meeting
July 29th, 1998 Meeting between API steering committee and the Mayor to update on progress
August 3rd, 1998 Second meeting by the Action Plan Implementation (API) committee
August 8th 1998 API steering committee meeting
August 13th, 1998 Meeting between the Mayor and the Action Plan Implementation (API) committee
Thereafter (as advised)









Appendix B
Selected Bibliography
HUD. (2018). The HOME Program: Home Investment Partnerships. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/hudprograms/home-program
Johnson, C. (2016). Socio-economic and Environmental Impact of Homelessness in Olympia. Washington. Environmental Health and Social Justice, 1-16.
King County. (1998). Median Household Income in King County and U.S. Retrieved from https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/performance-strategy-budget/regional-planning/benchmark-program/Economy/EC02_Income/MedianIncomeChart.aspx, (1998).